8 | JUNE 6 • 2024
J
N
opinion
Peace Now?
T
he unbearable imag-
es of the war in Gaza
have shaken the world,
prompting urgent calls for an
end to the suffering. However,
neither calls
for an imme-
diate unilateral
ceasefire, nor
incantations, nor
grand speeches,
nor votes at the
United Nations
will be enough
to bring about
peace or stop the violence. Yet
somehow, this approach seems
to prevail in much of the inter-
national community.
To think that a solution can
magically emerge — where hos-
tilities cease overnight without
the release of hostages or a sig-
nificant weakening of Hamas’
military infrastructure, leading
to its loss of control over the
Gaza Strip — and that unilater-
al recognition of a Palestinian
state, as recently voted for by a
number of countries at the U.N.
Security Council and promoted
by several European countries
including Spain, Slovenia,
Ireland and Belgium, would
lead to actual peace is not only
naive but also dangerous.
It is first necessary to under-
stand that the events since Oct.
7 are not just a renewed repe-
tition of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict but mark a war
between Israel and the Islamic
Republic of Iran and its prox-
ies — Hamas and Palestinian
Islamic Jihad in Gaza;
Hezbollah in Lebanon; Shi’ite
factions in Syria and Iraq; the
Houthis in Yemen; and terrorist
groups in the West Bank. Iran’s
hegemonic ambitions, nuclear
aspirations and alliance with
other authoritarian and dan-
gerous global players, such as
Russia, must be factored into
any global analysis and strate-
gy. The West, which has been
too passive in the face of the
mullahs, must finally tackle this
problem.
The current onslaught by
these authoritarian and terrorist
allies represents a multifaceted
threat — not only geopolitically
but also by exploiting vulnera-
bilities inherent within Western
societies. By co-opting seem-
ingly progressive ideologies,
these groups have launched a
divisive assault aimed at frag-
menting our social fabric. This
strategy is starkly evident in
its most extreme form on col-
lege campuses, where we have
witnessed an alarming trend:
Influenced by these manipu-
lated narratives, some young
people are not advancing the
idea of peace but increasingly
voicing support for radical
anti-Israel discourse and ter-
rorist organizations, and for
endorsing extremist actions,
including the murder and
genocide of Jews.
This troubling development
is a direct consequence of such
an insidious strategy, designed
to undermine and destabilize
from within and to be leveraged
as political pressure.
If we truly want to envision
a better future for Israelis and
Palestinians, it is also necessary
to understand that continuing
to offer better terms to a party
that has consistently rejected
any peace proposal to resolve
the conflict in the past — and
of which one faction, Hamas,
has vigorously engaged in ter-
rorist acts — only encourages
the most extreme elements
among the Palestinians to per-
sist in this approach.
It also pushes the most
intransigent parties in Israel
to persuade the rest of the
population that the status quo
is preferable to any form of
agreement. To those who know
the reality on the ground, it was
no surprise to see the recent
vote in the Knesset, initiated by
Israel Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, against unilateral
recognition of a Palestinian
state. Despite Netanyahu’s
low polling, 99 Knesset mem-
bers out of 120 supported
him, including a large part
of the opposition. The move
toward unilateral recognition
is perceived by the majority of
Israelis as a reward for the hor-
rors of Oct. 7.
Moreover, the once unshake-
able support in Israel for a
two-state solution has gradually
waned, and the national trau-
ma experienced on that Black
Shabbat seven months ago has
further reinforced the rigidity
in public opinion.
In January, 59% of Jewish
Israelis expressed their oppo-
sition to a two-state solution.
This resistance is not ideologi-
cal but based on concrete con-
siderations and legitimate fears;
although many Israelis are open
to a compromise for peace, they
are reluctant to abandon the
status quo without any solid
security guarantees and a peace
deal that would actually bring
about the final resolution of the
conflict.
The history of Israel’s terri-
torial withdrawals is a caution-
ary tale for many. The Oslo
Accords were followed by the
bloody Second Intifada, during
which more than 1,000 Israelis
were killed, often in suicide
bombings.
The withdrawal from Gaza in
2005 saw Hamas rapidly over-
take the Palestinian Authority
and go on to invest years in
building rocket factories and a
complex underground military
infrastructure. Similarly, the
departure from the Israeli secu-
rity zone in Southern Lebanon
did not lead to peace with
Hezbollah, but rather enabled
the group to consolidate its
control, accumulate a large
arsenal of rockets and deploy
thousands of elite Radwan
commandos near the border.
These decisive moments have
influenced Israelis’ perception,
associating the abandonment
of territory — and thus the idea
of a two-state solution — with
significant security risks. Many
now prefer to maintain the
status quo. Mere general talk of
“security guarantees” will never
reassure the public.
This perception is exacer-
Simone
Rodan-
Benzaquen
jns.org
View of the destruction caused by Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7, 2023, in
Kibbutz Kfar Aza, near the Israeli-Gaza border, in southern Israel, Nov.
2, 2023.
ARIE LEIB ABRAMS/FLASH90
PURELY COMMENTARY